Sheena Bora murder case — Peter Mukerjea played active role, told son Sheena was alive: CBI

He was produced before a CBI court Friday — less than half an hour after Indrani, the prime accused in the murder of her daughter Sheena, was escorted off the premises.

[related-post]

According to the CBI chargesheet, Sheena’s fiance and Peter’s son Rahul Mukerjea had recorded a phone conversation in which Peter allegedly lied to him that Sheena was alive and living in the US, and that he had spoken to her. The CBI claims to be in possession of this conversation. The agency also claims Peter deleted a series of messages and emails he exchanged with Rahul.

The chargesheet also states that Peter spoke to Indrani around the time Sheena was murdered.

“The accused misled Rahul to impress his wife. The accused did not want Rahul to pursue the disappearance of Sheena. He told Rahul that Sheena was in the USA. Rahul recorded that conversation,” Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh told the court, alleging that Peter’s involvement in the case was “beyond doubt”.

In the chargesheet, the agency has stated that the motive of the murder could be a financial dispute or the relationship between Sheena and Rahul. The two got engaged in December 2011 against the wishes of Peter and Indrani, the CBI claimed.

The CBI alleged in court that Indrani and Peter hatched the murder plot in early 2012. Indrani returned to India on April 23, 2012 while Peter stayed back in the UK and returned on April 26, a day after the murder, the CBI stated. On his return, Peter and Indrani maintained Sheena had moved to the US whenever they were confronted by Rahul, the CBI said.

“Indrani had purchased a flat for Sheena in Delhi through a gift deed but she later terminated it after learning about Sheena’s affair with Rahul. Sheena then allegedly started blackmailing Indrani, threatening to expose her before her social circuit as she had a birth certificate which proved that Indrani was her mother and not sister. Sheena demanded a three bedroom flat in Mumbai from Indrani. This appeared to have irked Indrani, who then hatched a plan to kill Sheena along with (her former husband) Sanjeev Khanna. Peter played an active and crucial role in the case,” stated the 1000-page CBI chargesheet.

Indrani, her former driver Shyam Rai, and Khanna were arrested earlier this year. A court on Friday granted CBI Peter’s custody till November 23.

In court, the CBI also alleged that Peter — based on his and Indrani’s call data records — was in “continuous touch” with Indrani before, during and after Sheena’s murder. “They were in continuous conversation immediately after, prior to and during the crime. At that time, Peter was abroad and the calls were around 20 minutes, 25 minutes and 22 minutes long and made in the night and day,” Singh told the court.

The agency claimed Peter had “roots” in Mumbai, Delhi, Goa, Kolkata, Shillong and various places outside India. However, the CBI said, he made no effort to find Sheena. “A family member disappears and nobody tried to find her whereabouts. A known family member or someone related suddenly disappears and no effort is made to find her. On the contrary, the accused misled his son,” Singh said.

Peter’s lawyer, advocate Niranjan Mundargi, said conversations with Indrani and Rahul could not prove he was part of the conspiracy. “She is his wife. They regularly travel together on vacations. If he is in touch with his wife, how does that show he is a conspirator,” Mundargi said.

While the CBI claimed there was a dispute between Indrani and Rahul, and that Peter was trying to resolve that dispute, Mundargi claimed Peter was attempting to “bridge a gap” between the two.

Dismissing the CBI’s allegations as “far-fetched”, Mundargi argued that there was no malicious intent to Peter’s conversation with Rahul. “He was trying to pacify the situation as Rahul had got angry with Indrani,” he said, adding, “Peter was in London when the alleged murder took place. What was the reason? What would he have to gain from it? What could be the motive? There were no financial transactions between Peter and Sheena. The word conspiracy is not sufficient.”